Author Topic: Shutterstock greater than 100 on the poll (Read 12272 times)

Ron · « **on:** June 10, 2014, 10:21 »

Shutterstock 100.8

I remember it was going down for a while, few months back it was at 85 or so an all time low. And now its for the first time since Leaf adjusted the poll that SS is over 100.

How come?

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2014, 10:30 »

I have to assume the average earnings are a little bit higher than the baseline that 100 is set at. It certainly doesn't reflect in my numbers, but congrats to everyone that is making a bit more.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2014, 10:34 »

Maybe because they've created new opportunities to earn more on a single download? That might have pushed up earnings, though mine have dropped quite a bit.

Goofy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2014, 10:45 »

Quote from: Ron on June 10, 2014, 10:21

Shutterstock 100.8

I remember it was going down for a while, few months back it was at 85 or so an all time low. And now its for the first time since Leaf adjusted the poll that SS is over 100.

How come?

Your extra sales pushed it over the 100 bench mark scale

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2014, 15:43 »

Istock exclusive used to be around 325, didn't it? I think both Fot and DT are down, too.

captain · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2014, 02:57 »

Whay's the logic to get this data? I mean how to calculate the score compared with other agency?

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2014, 13:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 10, 2014, 15:43

Istock exclusive used to be around 325, didn't it? I think both Fot and DT are down, too.

Sales seem to be deflating across the board. I do wonder if designers are getting sick of the plastic look of stock imagery, if its over used in marketing it can make a company look artificial and untrustworthy.

EmberMike · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2014, 20:11 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on June 16, 2014, 13:59

Sales seem to be deflating across the board. I do wonder if designers are getting sick of the plastic look of stock imagery, if its over used in marketing it can make a company look artificial and untrustworthy.

It doesn't matter if designers are tired of it, because clients seem to be and that's what really matters. I don't do much client work these days, but I've had a client ask me to look for images for a project that "aren't too stocky looking".

Microstock has a look, and it's getting tired. But that's not a bad thing necessarily, unless you're intent on doing shots in the near future of smiling receptionists wearing phone headsets while looking directly at the camera, smiling businessmen enthusiastically shaking hands, hands reaching out of computer screens shaking hands, apples isolated on white, etc.

Demand for something different means that there is an opportunity to deliver something different and not "stocky looking."

Goofy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2014, 21:36 »

Quote from: EmberMike on June 16, 2014, 20:11

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on June 16, 2014, 13:59
Sales seem to be deflating across the board. I do wonder if designers are getting sick of the plastic look of stock imagery, if its over used in marketing it can make a company look artificial and untrustworthy.

It doesn't matter if designers are tired of it, because clients seem to be and that's what really matters. I don't do much client work these days, but I've had a client ask me to look for images for a project that "aren't too stocky looking".

Microstock has a look, and it's getting tired. But that's not a bad thing necessarily, unless you're intent on doing shots in the near future of smiling receptionists wearing phone headsets while looking directly at the camera, smiling businessmen enthusiastically shaking hands, hands reaching out of computer screens shaking hands, apples isolated on white, etc.

Demand for something different means that there is an opportunity to deliver something different and not "stocky looking."

It's already here- called "Stocksy"

borg · « **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2014, 12:47 »

That Poll doesn't make sense to me!
This is weird mix of absolute and relative measures... Numbers mean nothing, even red/green arrows are not visible any more...

Fairplay · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2014, 17:30 »

A score of 100 = $500 a month!

This means that the score 103.3 x 5 = $516.50 reported average income for Shutterstock contributor?

borg · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2014, 04:03 »

Why is not directly in average income, why multiplicator?

MisterElements · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2014, 11:20 »

My Shutterstock is making about the same as my 123rf or Canstockphoto for me. Shutterstock having a score of 100+...... really....maybe in 2007.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2014, 21:24 »

Ask Leaf, but I agree with you, why not just show real numbers. They aren't exact, they are averages, they are limited to people who respond and the choices. But so what, why not just show it as Average Dollars, because that's what people vote?

Instead we have to use some multiplier that makes the same numbers.

Quote from: borg on June 19, 2014, 04:03

Why is not directly in average income, why multiplicator?

leaf · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2014, 23:54 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 19, 2014, 21:24

Ask Leaf, but I agree with you, why not just show real numbers. They aren't exact, they are averages, they are limited to people who respond and the choices. But so what, why not just show it as Average Dollars, because that's what people vote?

Instead we have to use some multiplier that makes the same numbers.

Quote from: borg on June 19, 2014, 04:03
Why is not directly in average income, why multiplicator?

because if there was number people would try and make them mean something concrete.. saying that if the number was $500 then people are earning $500 on average at site X. Since the top is capped off at $2000/month all the high votes are going to get missed. I capped it to limit the 'power' of the spam votes. It should be seen simply as a ranking with the spread between agencies somewhat representative of the spread in earnings potential.

borg · « **Reply #15 on:** June 20, 2014, 03:35 »

Allowing poll voting only to members who verified their account here, maybe will be a good option to avoid spaming...
Also there is other system in statistic to find better average, such as "median" to avoid extremes or something else...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

chromaco · « **Reply #16 on:** June 20, 2014, 13:04 »

Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** June 20, 2014, 13:08 »

Quote from: chromaco on June 20, 2014, 13:04

Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.

well said. I wish I was as eloquent

cthoman · « **Reply #18 on:** June 20, 2014, 13:37 »

Quote from: leaf on June 20, 2014, 13:08

Quote from: chromaco on June 20, 2014, 13:04
Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.

well said. I wish I was as eloquent

Besides, that is what the survey at the end of the year is for.

borg · « **Reply #19 on:** June 20, 2014, 13:48 »

Quote from: chromaco on June 20, 2014, 13:04

Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.

Yes you can! That is RPI!

eZeePics · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2014, 13:49 »

Totally agree with Dennis.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** June 20, 2014, 21:01 »

Actually Leaf makes a good point and so does chromaco. I wasn't thinking of "relativity" and it makes more sense than a hard number. Especially when it's capped at $2000.

As for RPI. When I get up off the floor from laughing... RPI for what? Someone who uploads only their best, and has a small number, or someone who uploads 500 from their visit to the petting zoo with their two kids?

RPI only applies to the individual, based on their personal collection, and it's contents. It's even less useful, as a general assessment, than the poll on the right.

Quote from: borg on June 20, 2014, 13:48

Quote from: chromaco on June 20, 2014, 13:04
Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.

Yes you can! That is RPI!

borg · « **Reply #22 on:** June 21, 2014, 03:29 »

I am flying above the floor from laughing...

Your approach is similar to "Whose girl is prettier!" Typical approach for artists!

What is "the best of my portfolio" for me, doesn't mean that is the best for selling over stock agencies...
Also you have to upload them all to see what is the best for selling, right!? In that moment you will see what is your RPI!

In fact, final monthly sum of someone's portfolios earnings in completely unusable... There is many porftolios with 25 images, or with 2500 images, how to put them in the same calculations, without some relative measures?

RPI is quite good measure to compare selling quality among portfolios, it's like that mainly because one thing, we all want money!

All ratios of data are quite good for comparing... Like on the stock exchange market P/E, P/B etc. the RPI or RPD are the same...

Also weird hidden numbers doesn't mean to me anything... I have to compare them in my head or on a calculator to get some relative numbers about potential selling over the agencies... "Relativity is everything (A.A)"

But that is just my opinion, I don't want to offend anyone who thinks or do on a different way...

cascoly · « **Reply #23 on:** June 21, 2014, 11:39 »

Quote from: borg on June 21, 2014, 03:29

.....In fact, final monthly sum of someone's portfolios earnings in completely unusable... There is many porftolios with 25 images, or with 2500 images, how to put them in the same calculations, without some relative measures?

RPI is quite good measure to compare selling quality among portfolios, it's like that mainly because one thing, we all want money!

All ratios of data are quite good for comparing... Like on the stock exchange market P/E, P/B etc. the RPI or RPD are the same...
../...

all ratios are NOT equal --
sorry, but that's just not statistically accurate - you CAN't add ratios to produce an overall ratio. RPI has no relation to PE and other objective measures -- but even here, you can't take an average of multiple PEs

but RPI as Pete pointed out RPIs can't be compared, especially since each RPI is based on a different total of images. 2 artists may each make $100 from ss,but one has an RPI of $5, the other of $.50 -- averaging RPI (in this case $2.75) is meaningless

borg · « **Reply #24 on:** June 21, 2014, 12:05 »

To me is much more meaningless to make sum of earnings of two different portfolios (different size, age etc.) and then to calculate mid point of them...
Totally useless! How could portfolio 5 years old can be with just one number or value in formula with portfolio which is 5 months old?
But if you compare RPI in one month of two portfolios is quite better, one with 2000 images has RPI 0,89$ and the other with 20 images and 0,56$ you can find some averages, but with ponders...
So then you have to calculate ponders of them, percentage values for multiplication... It is some kind of strength, ponder of portfolio with 2000 image will be 2000/2020= 0,99, and ponders from 20 images is: 20/2020= 0.01

Then mid RPI of those two portfolios will be: 0.89*0.99+0.56*0.01=0,8722

With more portfolios in calculation you will be closer to the true RPI of some agency!
Mid RPI of some agency means what average accepted portfolio can expect there...

There is no any more problem with age, size, or quality...

Then if you compare mid RPIs among agencies you will get some usable data!
P.S.
Also P/E in stock (share) industry is the most usable ratio to compare different companies, from investor's point of view...
Also EPS, in fact EPS (earning per share) is very similar to RPI...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock greater than 100 on the poll (Read 12272 times)

Ron

cthoman

Shelma1

Goofy

BaldricksTrousers

captain

stock-will-eat-itself

EmberMike

Goofy

borg

Fairplay

borg

MisterElements

Uncle Pete

leaf

borg

chromaco

leaf

cthoman

borg

eZeePics

Uncle Pete

borg

cascoly

borg

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors